|
|||||||||
Posted July 26, 2002
Go Dog!
Kevin Carson's "Horowitz, Chomsky, and the Neoconservative Ideology," was insightful, well-researched, and most provocative. In such hothouse intellectual confrontations between the disingenuous, pompous neocon David Horowitz or unctuous, knee-jerk anarcho-Leninist Noam Chomsky, one is tempted to cry out, "Go dog, go cat!" ...
Bakunin
[Regarding Kevin Carson's guest column "Horowitz, Chomsky, and the Neoconservative Ideology:]
The "single quote" from a book by Daniel Guerin is available, as is the book Anarchism, the english edition of which Chomsky contributed the forward.
Other materials on Bakunin's conflict with Marx over the fate of the First International are available in the anthology From out of the Dustbin, also available in an edition published by Prometheus Press under the title Mikhail Bakunin: Basic Writings. (Both books may be out of print, but are very much in circulation second hand.)
As for Chomsky's priorities on the State, he just makes the point that simply abolishing the state without something better in mind, will probably make things worse. Absent a libertarian society any piecemeal abolition is just shifting power to corporations, not destroying State power.
Carson doesn't like the way Chomsky sources his data or his priorities, he doesn't say where Chomsky is wrong in regard to the facts.
Being Disingenuous
Is Kevin Carson calling Noam Chomsky disingenuous because Mr. Chomsky doesn't make it easy to look up his sources? If Mr. Chomsky does this on purpose because he isn't being truthful about his sources then it would be disingenuous. If Mr. Carson is calling Mr. Chomsky disingenuous because Mr. Chomsky uses the same quote; this is a bit disingenuous. If I use the same quote a million times it doesn't mean I'm being disingenuous, redundant, but not disingenuous.
It's not intellectually inconsistent to have different "visions" and "goals". My vision is that the country is going to go through some painful economic turmoil which in turn will help us focus less on short-term profit and more on spiritually worthwhile things. It doesn't mean my goal is economic turmoil. And being criticized for not falling completely into one (libertarian anarchy) line of thinking should be a compliment. Maybe if Mr. Carson comes up with a few more labels and ideologies each person can have their own, even if they have to be a former-Trotskyite-anti-Straussian-liberal-paleocon.
Normalization
I read with interest about Taiwan's desire for normalization with China. America's power is gradually but not gracefully weakening. Much of our clout in the world was built on being able to take advantage of hostilities in various regions. The Korean War left us with natural allies in South Korea and Japan and Taiwan. But, as China privatizes and becomes more of a normal nation rather than a Communist State, then the hostilities of the region begin to become mute.
The American State has grown to love its power more than peaceful solutions to regional problems that lessen American control over those regions. This shortsighted foreign policy will backfire on our USA. Congress will undoubtedly sell or give more weapons to Taiwan. But, eventually we should not be surprised to see China and Taiwan work towards a confederation which returns Taiwan into being a portion of China, but allows Taiwan a large degree of autonomy. If that happens our foreign policy will have greatly aided China in creating a far larger fleet on the cheap than they could have done with hostility towards Taiwan. My prediction, "any arms for Taiwan will eventually be integrated into the Chinese military at American taxpayer expense." Then, we will see Chinese destroyers and submarines proudly posting signs saying "Your American tax dollars at work."
I write this not to create a Red scare, I don't fear China, they seem pretty obviously to lack the love of war that our American State thrives on. But, as a taxpayer I get sort of tired of seeing us dole out arms to tentative temporary allies, who do not have a long term natural ties with the United States. In the end, our weapons almost always become the weapons of people who not only have no tie to us but also have a lingering hostility toward us for our intervention in their neighborhood. We arm Taiwan today, but Taiwan's natural ties are most certainly with the nation of China and not the United States and natural ties will triumph over artificial ones.
Atheists
I think that much of what Raimondo writes is pure gold, but he really dropped the ball in part of his ... column ["In Search of Monsters"]. Specifically, I would like to question what was going on in his head when he wrote that bit about the "attacks" on Christianity by "militant atheists."
...For starters, name me a single, uh, "militant atheist" organization with a shred of political power in the United States. You know, one that would counteract the influence of the Robertson/Falwell/Ollie North types that extends even to the Libertarian Party. ...
I also noted you brought up the whole Pledge of Allegiance "issue" as an example of this "militancy." As far as I recall, Newdow took his case through the courts in a legitimate fashion, and if you can explain to me how that makes him a "militant," tell me your address so I'll know where to send your new Lexus. Furthermore, you conveniently omitted the response to this "militant atheist attack" – the absurdly hypocritical display of ... "bipartisan" religiosity by our beloved politicians, all those token "protests," the labeling of Newdow as "the most hated man in America," and lastly, the thousands of death threats directed at Newdow. That last one especially – it strikes me that such an action is far, far more "militant" than anything Newdow or any "militant atheist" of yours ever did....
Next, you mention the Waco debacle. Your wording implies that the people who died there were cruelly put to death because of their religious beliefs – an example of innocent Christians being thrown to the lions. Gee, Justin, you don't think it might be an unintended insult to Christianity to equate it with David "Give me a baby to beat and a little girl to rape, for I am God" Koresh? And what kind of logical leap does it take to call government agents "militant atheists," especially after seeing our fine government as saturated with religion as after the pledge ruling? Why would a government full of fundamentalist nutcases (Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay, ad nauseam) seek to destroy religion?
Honestly, man. You know better. If you were being tongue-in-cheek, the joke's on me, but if not – for shame.
Rogue States
The two most prolific 'rogue states' of the past five decades, Israel and the United States, share more than one thing in common.
They both have an inability to study the past in order to improve prospects for the future. The United States, an empire in all but name, seems incapable of understanding that every empire that ever existed eventually imploded. The last example is that of the British Empire, arguably the largest ever. The United Kingdom once ruled over North America as it did over much of the world. Now we don't even have a reliable railway system!
Israel suffers from a similar arrogance. A people once persecuted have become the persecutors and seem bewildered by the lack of Palestinian acceptance of the current situation....
Both were founded over the corpses of indigenous populations, both refuse to accept this fact. Neither can understand that people opposing them have a legitimate grievance, and both believe in overwhelming military power to sort out their problems.
'Anti' Antiwar.commers will surely read into the above that I hate Americans and am only whinging because I am jealous that the United States now occupies the seat of power that that Europe and the UK once held. Well, I'm not. I'm quite happy for the USA to be in the envious position of being the most hated country in the world, it lets the rest of us get on with our lives without being targets of fanatics. I don't dislike Americans, I just dislike their voracious capitalism and corrupt and short-sighted foreign policy. I am only happy to see that there appears to be a significant proportion of Americans, such as your readers and columnists, expressing their concern with the current situation, but it is a pity that there is not yet more direct action....
Evening in America
I did not celebrate July 4th. One does not “celebrate” a loss of independence on Independence Day.
Such was my small way of protest against the “Patriot” Act and its totalitarianism – laid bare by Justin Raimondo who can, as once said of George Orwell, “strip the sprawling tangle of the world around him down to its core.”
For as effectively as our government schools have snuffed out the Christian-based history of our forefathers, so has this administration snuffed out the right to dissent bequeathed to us by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776.
That right was essential to America’s continued independence. It ignited the flame of freedom that dispelled tyranny and fueled the engines of the world.
That flame is now as spent as last year’s firecracker. On July 4th henceforth, Americans will celebrate the “Patriot” Act. To dissent – even to contribute a dollar to the wrong destitute foreign family – can be an act of “terror.” And all “terrorists” are subject to property confiscation and/or imprisonment and/or worse. Without trial. So ordered.
Welcome to occupied Palestine.
Consciously misusing words and sentiments while working the crowd for war, the State today pronounces the Pledge of Allegiance “in,” although yesterday it was “out”; yesterday the flag was passé, today it must wave; yesterday God was illegitimate, today it’s “God Bless America” with a narrow-eyed, finger pointing Uncle Sam demanding of the silent, “You got a problem with that?”
Instead of true freedom, the State has hired the man who designed the “Morning in America” campaign for Reagan to “patriotize” us with “commercials” on freedom – sustaining, he says, that “patriotism” Americans showed after 9/11.
No longer are distant “others” the lone victims of total power. Americans, too, are suffering at the hands of the same emerging “one-world” Super Power where evil men are permitted to be their own law, to mobilize, unfettered, their net of worldwide crime and extortion and control. Freedom’s unsleeping enemies in 1917 found a seat in Russia; today they are seated in America.
Said John Buchan, Scottish author and statesman writing shortly after the Bolshevik takeover of Russia: “Crime has no fatherland. It is as old as human nature and as wide as the earth and so powerful that it stretches its hand to crime throughout the globe.”
And it feeds and thrives on ignorance, lies, fear, hate, and make-believe. And freedom relinquishing “patriotism.”
“Morning in America?” Or “Evening in America?” Sunup – or sundown? The American people – still the most potentially powerful political force in the country – must soon decide. The decision is theirs.
~ ML